A manufacturers view on scaling

Kikimalou wrote:

Egbert wrote:

For the scale issue, frankly i do want to try to match scales wherever possible and i will try to the future, hence my trial with 1:30 scale for the Prehistoric range.
Like many of you I feel there is such beauty in a range that has true perspective, it looks so natural.

Captain James Egbert Connoly, I'm sure you will

Egbert wrote:

It is a good comparison but if you chose Breyer production technique and scaling it would be a trade off, fine detail and texture or scale?

Not easy i'm afraid

About the trade off, fine detail and texture or scale? I'm 100% for the texture, detail... and unusual species

I love also figures in scale not because of dioramas but mainly because of the educational results of it. Anyway, I understand completely that Mojo and other brands doesn't follow it. You're explaining very well the reasons and we, collectors, are also responsible for it.
I know only some members that defend figures in scale and I know a lot of members that defend them not in scale.
When I find someone saying that CollectA zebra is to large when compared with Schleich zebra it makes me crazy. They are almost the same size only the sculpting is different what makes them with different proportions. Though, zebras in real, have a larger size variation than these 2 figures. It is also disturbing seeing some members, not only the young ones, commenting that Papo hippopotamus is too large. Too large compared with what? Actually it is small when compared with the average sizes of all brand ranges. Why? Because Schleich hippos are incredibly small and because Schleich is the most popular brand, their sizes are accepted as true representations of the sizes of the animals. Is it Schleich fault? No, as long as almost all brands follow the same strategy.But people works better with what is used and History has teached us that when people is used with what is wrong, people will defend it as a religion. Why insist that the Earth orbits around the Sun when everybody sees clearly that it is the Sun that moves in the sky?
So, I don't want Mojo being a victim of the Schleichcentrism once the brand is already a reference in educational aspects, giving us, for example, species like the Iberian lynx and giant sable, adding some information and making efforts to help the Institutions envolved in their preservation.
Also, Mojo is a brand that lives only from its animal range and I think the reintorduction of figures in scale is less dangerous to brands that has animal series in a secondary level of importance. Why people asks often Mojo? Because it is the brand that listens to us. :)
However, I'm also glad that you're introducing prehistoric mammals in 1:30 scale, contrary to Christophe I think it is not a huge problem to make a baluchitherium once in volume it is not much larger than a deinotherium. Worse is to make a smilodon apealing in 1:30 scale, something that would result smaller than the Iberian lynx, even worse trying to make some even smaller prehistoric mammals. It goes long!

Hello E

Finaly you give youre real name,,Mister master piece creator James

Welcome in our community,good to see you here
and cleared up some scale formality's

Martien

Roger wrote:

However, I'm also glad that you're introducing prehistoric mammals in 1:30 scale, contrary to Christophe I think it is not a huge problem to make a baluchitherium once in volume it is not much larger than a deinotherium. Worse is to make a smilodon apealing in 1:30 scale, something that would result smaller than the Iberian lynx, even worse trying to make some even smaller prehistoric mammals. It goes long!

A baluchitherium would be a BIG model Roger, bigger than an average deinotherium, especially if Mojö would make it as bulky as his deinotherium. I must say I hope so, the "fitness style" indrico from COLLECTA is not really my cup of tea .
IMHO the problem is not only the size but also the prospects of sale. A baluchitherium is not a best seller as a Trex so I'm not sure a huge and expensive model would be a comfortable choice.
It would be great to know Egbert's point about this

James thanks so much for taking the time for your explanation. I have always wanted some "relative scale"(I never say scale, because as we have determined that would nearly impossible) newer toy lines like my Britians.

As I have mentioned before(Not sure if you saw my recent post) the popular Hasbro Star Wars line which has their individual figures(3 3/4" figures) selling for $5.99 to $8.99 and then two or three figure packs, larger vehicles/space ships and creatures for any where from $10.99 to $150.00. Even though it comes down to pricing, Hasbro has a lot of variety, and they offer the product and collectors/parents/kids buy it! So if you want to pay $150 for a larger item like the Millennium Falcon or an AT AT Walker you can or $25 for the Rancor you can! Don't think you would have to charge $150 dollars for a Deinotherium the size of a Safari WW Asian elephant, but $15-$20 wouldn't be unreasonable(I see how the the 2013 prehistoric mammals are in scale to each other).

Because I like to display my animals on the same shelf, I am really limited(Ex: I have my Papo tigers placed near my Safari WW Asian elephants(Different lines, but it works for me), although not perfect scale, but it looks way better than the Papo tigers next to the Papo Asian elephant) because I really hate the size differences.

Anyway, again, thanks for taking the time to explain, and perhaps think about how Hasbro pleases its fanbase by (Although not perfect scale), using some "relative scale" with their 3 3/4" figures as their focal point.
So if worried about safety regulations, make the big cats & great apes your "3 3/4" figures focal point" and make the antelopes, giraffes, zebras, hippos, rhinos, elephants off that scale (So if you did a savannah diorama all those would look descent together). And then for the smaller mammals (rabbits, weasels, otters etc.) go larger scale for child safety.

First off, welcome James! It's great to have you here (as yourself).

The question of scaling is interesting. All other things being equal, I'd love to see animals sculpted in relative scale. But other things aren't equal, and it seems the costs of pushing too hard for relative scale are too high. James' comments help clarify these costs.

I always thought I appreciated the fact that I was collecting children's toys. But the significance of this fact didn't fully sink in until we had the discussion about the upcoming 2013 Mojo Sloth. When some members complained about the position of the Sloth in the crook of two tree trunks, it was pointed out (by Roger, I believe, who was communicating the point from Mojo's James) that the sculptor wouldn't be able to represent the gorgeous sloth claws safely unless they were wrapped around the tree trunks.

I was already delighted by the pose (I was one of the people arguing in favor of it), but the realization that the tree trunks were needed to make those amazing claws safe really impressed upon me the limitations under which toy manufacturers are working.

Safety is one issue. Sales is also, of necessity, an issue. We're lucky to have companies like Mojo bringing us diverse and fascinating figures (like that awesome Sloth!), but it seems clear that if Mojo's giraffes and elephants cost $25-$30, you'd have a lot of parents who might have purchased a Mojo figure buying a Schleich, or Safari, or Papo instead. I just don't see how Mojo could possibly make relative scale a serious aim and at the same time flourish.

So, although I'd love to see more animals at relative scale, I'd rather see companies flourishing.

And I can hardly wait for that Sloth.

Maybey when they make a baluchitherium,they can make it as a special production
smae they can do with the megatherium,,
like every year a special edition mammal (o)):

wow now i have for 2 years olready a special edition

with limited copies,,
ofcourse the collectors wil have first choice

Martien

Kikimalou wrote:

Roger wrote:

However, I'm also glad that you're introducing prehistoric mammals in 1:30 scale, contrary to Christophe I think it is not a huge problem to make a baluchitherium once in volume it is not much larger than a deinotherium. Worse is to make a smilodon apealing in 1:30 scale, something that would result smaller than the Iberian lynx, even worse trying to make some even smaller prehistoric mammals. It goes long!

A baluchitherium would be a BIG model Roger, bigger than an average deinotherium, especially if Mojö would make it as bulky as his deinotherium. I must say I hope so, the "fitness style" indrico from COLLECTA is not really my cup of tea .
IMHO the problem is not only the size but also the prospects of sale. A baluchitherium is not a best seller as a Trex so I'm not sure a huge and expensive model would be a comfortable choice.
It would be great to know Egbert's point about this

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I continue thinking that who makes a deinotherium in 1:30 scale don't have any technical problem to make a baluchitherium in the same scale. Sales is another question. Of course it doesn't sell as much as a T-rex but probably it sells as much as some sauropods. As baluchitherium is larger in many aspects and only a little heavier than a large deinotherium, I believe it is not as bulky as a deino. Anyway, I agree with you and I would love best a paraceratherium bulky like a rhino than the half giraffe/horse interepretation of CollectA. It was surely a very massive creature although it is also very tall and long.
I like best th pose of this diagram than the giraffe pose.

Roger wrote:

I continue thinking that who makes a deinotherium in 1:30 scale don't have any technical problem to make a baluchitherium in the same scale. Sales is another question. Of course it doesn't sell as much as a T-rex but probably it sells as much as some sauropods. As baluchitherium is larger in many aspects and only a little heavier than a large deinotherium, I believe it is not as bulky as a deino. Anyway, I agree with you and I would love best a paraceratherium bulky like a rhino than the half giraffe/horse interepretation of CollectA. It was surely a very massive creature although it is also very tall and long.
I like best th pose of this diagram than the giraffe pose.

I don't say it is a technical problem, making a big sauropod is possible so there is no technical reason MOJÖ would be unable to make a Paraceratherium. I was talking about commercial reasons. This animal is believed to reach 4,5 or even 5,5 meters at shoulders. It means a 1:30 Indricotherium would be 15 or 18 cm at shoulder. For example, the 2012 COLLECTA giraffe is 18cm at the TOP of the head !


I have a 1:40 Indricotherium model and it is already a massive guy

Kikimalou wrote:

Roger wrote:

I continue thinking that who makes a deinotherium in 1:30 scale don't have any technical problem to make a baluchitherium in the same scale. Sales is another question. Of course it doesn't sell as much as a T-rex but probably it sells as much as some sauropods. As baluchitherium is larger in many aspects and only a little heavier than a large deinotherium, I believe it is not as bulky as a deino. Anyway, I agree with you and I would love best a paraceratherium bulky like a rhino than the half giraffe/horse interepretation of CollectA. It was surely a very massive creature although it is also very tall and long.
I like best th pose of this diagram than the giraffe pose.

I don't say it is a technical problem, making a big sauropod is possible so there is no technical reason MOJÖ would be unable to make a Paraceratherium. I was talking about commercial reasons. This animal is believed to reach 4,5 or even 5,5 meters at shoulders. It means a 1:30 Indricotherium would be 15 or 18 cm at shoulder. For example, the 2012 COLLECTA giraffe is 18cm at the TOP of the head !

I have a 1:40 Indricotherium model and it is already a massive guy

Very nice comparisons, thanks for showing! I don't have so extreme data about the size of a baluchitherium, 4,5 m at shoulder is closer from what I can find. Anyway, I'm not as documented with prehistoric life as you are.
Also, there is always the option of the brand choose a smaller species inside the genus what is not an excelent idea when the animal being represented is the largest known land mammal. :)

Hi Everyone

This is a very nice discussion, its refreshing to hear the different thoughts and ideas pertaining to scale.

Balti's idea in respect to the Hasbro idea does have some merit and is worth considering however I am loathe to have models selling for US$100+, unless it was a 1:10 scale version of Crocobert, then we might make an exception I think we might sell a few of those on STS!!!
No seriously, the idea does make sense, thank you Balti, i am considering this.

Regarding the Baluchitherium, my view is that if we made this then it would have to be a 1:30 scale model, however as rightly pointed out by Kiki and Roger it would be very big. That said if the Prehistoric mammals prove popular then it would be such a shame if we didn't do a good representation of the largest known land mammal on both a size and quality level.
We cant keep everything to scale as i mentioned before but sometimes exceptions can be made.

Worse way it would make a very attractive door stop Just joking!

Many thanks everyone for your thoughts and ideas.

James

Roger wrote:

Very nice comparisons, thanks for showing! I don't have so extreme data about the size of a baluchitherium, 4,5 m at shoulder is closer from what I can find. Anyway, I'm not as documented with prehistoric life as you are.
Also, there is always the option of the brand choose a smaller species inside the genus what is not an excelent idea when the animal being represented is the largest known land mammal. :)

Even at 4,5m at shoulders, it is huge. About the size, I agree a smaller specie would not be the best idea for showing the largest known land mammal. It's the same with all these blue whales smaller than the humpback whales

Egbert wrote:

Balti's idea in respect to the Hasbro idea does have some merit and is worth considering however I am loathe to have models selling for US$100+, unless it was a 1:10 scale version of Crocobert, then we might make an exception I think we might sell a few of those on STS!!!
James

I'm sure the 1:10 Crocobert idea would be a colossal... flop!
Also, the only extraterrestrial I know with almost the same proportions as me it is little Lionel Messi. I'm only slightly bulkier and of course much more talented playing football.

Kikimalou wrote:

It's the same with all these blue whales smaller than the humpback whales

That's a great point to explain why it is hard to work with animals in scale.
How many vintage 1:32 scale brands made a blue whale?
Even a pygmy blue whale would be huge in that scales.
Anyway it is not understandeable seeing them smaller than a humpback whale, I agree!

Roger wrote:

Kikimalou wrote:

It's the same with all these blue whales smaller than the humpback whales

That's a great point to explain why it is hard to work with animals in scale.
How many vintage 1:32 scale brands made a blue whale?
Even a pygmy blue whale would be huge in that scales.
Anyway it is not understandeable seeing them smaller than a humpback whale, I agree!

It is indeed the problem when the most interesting characteristic of an animal is the gigantism

Kikimalou wrote:

Roger wrote:

Kikimalou wrote:

It's the same with all these blue whales smaller than the humpback whales

That's a great point to explain why it is hard to work with animals in scale.
How many vintage 1:32 scale brands made a blue whale?
Even a pygmy blue whale would be huge in that scales.
Anyway it is not understandeable seeing them smaller than a humpback whale, I agree!

It is indeed the problem when the most interesting characteristic of an animal is the gigantism

Thanks for considering my idea, based upon the success of the Hasbro Star Wars line.
So I think a good compromise would be to have: Elephants(since the largest figure) the size of the Safari WW size and sell for that $20 range, and then have the rest of the "larger mammals" (Big cats, antelope, rhinos, hippos, giraffes, great apes, ostriches etc. sell for $15 - $6 range) be to "relative scale" to those elephants.
*That way if you did a savannah diorama at least you would have a "majority" of the animals look descent together.
Then for example do small mammals(Monkeys, meerkats, armadillos, otters, koalas etc.) be to a "larger scale" for safety regulations.

I think it's a good compromise.

baltimore zoo wrote:

Thanks for considering my idea, based upon the success of the Hasbro Star Wars line.
So I think a good compromise would be to have: Elephants(since the largest figure) the size of the Safari WW size and sell for that $20 range, (...)

I would like to see Mojo elephants in scale as big as WW ones (1:20-1:18), I'm sure it would be lovely!

Welcome James!

I found really interesting what you said about scales. It´s something I´ve been thinking about for a long time, and that was my conclussion so I´m happy I was correct at least in part. I can perfectly understand the reasons of each figurine size.

Thank you!

Forgot to say, since you would loathe having to pay over $100(Like I said the most expensive figure would be in that affordable $25 range), but perhaps charging $50-$100 for a playset of some sort to display the animals. Like an Arctic set for the polars, or a Kopje for an African animals etc..

I do have a question... First, I am glad the topic of scaling came up. I understand about not having the animal figures small so that children can choke on them, but.... how does a company that puts out "toobs" and "minis" get away with releasing small figures? If they can make minis and smaller animals for toobs... why can't the scale of animal figures be consistent? :}

Great point Mark1 ! If they can make toob size animal figures, then they should be able to do an entire line of "relative scale".

Exactly! Thank you! Now..... which company will be brave enough to start such an enterprise...................???

Mark1 wrote:

Exactly! Thank you! Now..... which company will be brave enough to start such an enterprise...................???

Noah`s Pals did, - but they were sold and shut down

That neat and sad at the same time... I checked my source that I usually buy from and they have Noah's Pals... all in 1:24 scale. Go to tgftoys.com

Yes, Noah Pal's did to relative scale, but they weren't the best quality of figure line.